## Facts

- Kansas’s capital sentencing statute required death if a unanimous jury found that aggravating circumstances were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances.
- Michael Lee Marsh II broke into a Wichita home, waited for the resident to return, killed Marry Ane Pusch, and set the home on fire, causing the death of her 19-month-old daughter.
- A jury convicted Marsh of capital murder (child victim), first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary.
- At sentencing, the jury found three statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and concluded the aggravators were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances.
- Based on the statute and the jury’s findings, Marsh was sentenced to death.
- On direct appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional on the theory that it created a presumption of death when aggravating and mitigating circumstances were in equipoise, and it ordered a new trial on capital murder and aggravated arson.
- Kansas sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court after the state court invalidated the statute on federal constitutional grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to review a state-court judgment invalidating a state statute on federal constitutional grounds and remanding for further proceedings.
2. Whether the judgment rested on an adequate and independent state-law ground that barred U.S. Supreme Court review.
3. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid a capital sentencing statute that requires death when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are equally balanced.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the federal constitutional ruling invalidating the statute was final as to that issue and binding on lower state courts, leaving the State without a later opportunity to obtain federal review.
- The Court held there was no adequate and independent state ground because the state court’s holding turned on federal constitutional analysis.
- The Court reversed, holding the Kansas capital sentencing statute constitutional.
- The Court held the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a State from imposing the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating evidence is in equipoise, so long as the scheme requires proof of aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and permits full consideration of mitigating evidence.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s decision.

## Legal Principles

- A state-court decision invalidating a state statute on federal constitutional grounds can be reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 even if the case is remanded, when the federal issue has been finally decided and later review is unavailable.
- U.S. Supreme Court review is not barred by adequate and independent state grounds when the state court’s judgment rests on federal constitutional law.
- The Eighth Amendment requires a guided-discretion capital scheme that narrows eligibility through statutory aggravators and allows the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence.
- The Eighth Amendment does not require any specific burden allocation or a constitutional rule that a “tie” in the weighing of aggravation and mitigation must result in a life sentence.
- A statute may direct a death sentence when aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, including when the evidence is in equipoise, provided the statutory safeguards against arbitrary sentencing are satisfied.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Kansas’s capital sentencing statute and ruled that the Eighth Amendment permits a death sentence when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are equally balanced, so long as the State proves statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt and the sentencer may consider all mitigating evidence.


Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006)